Well, I have decided to go with PicBasic Pro. It
covers every chip I could want to use, has a great command set, and has
been around long enough to be the most stable of the BASIC compilers
(according to evrything I have read). All in all, after weighing the
options, I feel that this will give me the best value for my money. I
did not go with MBasic, as it appears that it has been a while since it has
been updated. Proton+ was out of the running as soon as it became so
pricey. True, it is now a full-out developers package, but a lot of
what I read on their forums is that it is not very stable. I do not
need any more headaches that can be avoided!
Thanks to all that
gave their opinions and suggestions.
Well, I have decided to go with PicBasic Pro. It covers every chip I
could want to use, has a great command set, and has been around long
enough to be the most stable of the BASIC compilers (according to
evrything I have read). All in all, after weighing the options, I
feel that this will give me the best value for my money.
I did not go with MBasic, as it appears that it has been a while since
it has been updated.
Proton+ was out of the running as soon as it became so pricey. True,
it is now a full-out developers package, but a lot of what I read on
their forums is that it is not very stable. I do not need any more
headaches that can be avoided!
Thanks to all that gave their opinions and suggestions.
Scott
Reply by Malcolm●May 3, 20052005-05-03
I too use the PicKIT1 - the sample code for flashing LEDs simply would
not work when programmed using the PicKIT1 programmer - This programmer
works fine using code produced with JAL and other compilers.
A friend who also has the same programmer also tried the examples and
got the same result !!
Peter Vincent wrote:
> Nonsense, i do not use their development boards i
make my own with
> vero strip board and i do not use their programmers i have used my
> pickit1 programmer and my DIY-K149B programmer they both work fine i
> just compile it load the hex file into my programmer and its done,
> i have had no problems, Seems to compile poorly ??? i think maybe the
> problem is with your hardware design not with microbasic i tryed All
> the examples before i purchased it they all worked fine thats one
> reason i got my wallet out
>
> hope this thread dont turn into a basic war but i am glad i seem to
> have stimulated a big intrest :)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Malcolm <mailto:malcolm.crabbe@malc...>
> *To:* piclist@picl... <mailto:piclist@picl...>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 29, 2005 4:32 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [piclist] Re: PicBasic Pro v. MBasic...
>
> I downloaded mikroboasic and tried some of the sample files, which
> seemed to compile poorly (the hex would not work even though the code
> compiled without errors) - Yes support is good, and the forums are
> active but the problem is that their software is designed to function
> with their own development boards and programmers.
>
> I know its going off topic a bit.. but there are other alternatives.
> JAL is free and well supported, CH-BASIC has a nice interface and
> reputedly produces tight code for a compiler. PicBASIC (pro) is well
> supported and there are lots of IDE's available for it, and loads
of
> example programs.
>
> I think at the end of the day you will never get the "perfect"
> item as
> there will always one or several functions that one has over the
> others. Your choice will also depend on the amount and level of
> programming you are doing.
>
> Personally I don't write a lot of programs and as most of my stuff
is
> pretty basic stuff I use JAL.
>
> The choice is yours my friend
>
> Regards
>
> Malcolm
>
> rtstofer wrote:
>
> > --- In piclist@picl..., "Peter Vincent" <p3t3rv@b...>
wrote:
> > > product support is great they are in the process of releasing
> > version 2 a big update lots of new built in functions bug fixes all
> > of which came from the forum they asked us what we wanted to see in
> > version 2 via the forum they put it in , your questions get answerd
> > by the people that actualy write the code, just because they dont
> > rip us off with constant charges for updates (pay or get left
> > behind) is no measure of the quality of customer service just look
> > at MPLAB from picmicro a very substantional piece of software
> > constantly updated do they charge ? do they even charge for the
> > software to begin with ? no and no so dose that meen Microchip
gives
> > crap support ? my PicKit1 flash starter kit was only 20 the
> > upgrades are free
> >
> > I don't think the comparison is reasonable:
> >
> > Microchip is in the business of selling chips. Tens of millions of
> > chips - they can easily afford to offer development software. They
> > also need it for their own work. Why would anyone buy a chip if
> > they couldn't use it?
> >
> > Xilinx and Altera (among others) are finally offering free
> > development software for their FPGA offerings. It gets their
> > products used by more people for more applications. Maybe it adds a
> > dollar a chip to the cost - not an important consideration.
> >
> > >
> > > customer support is more than weather you pay for upgrades or
> > not , its how the vendor interacts with the customer to provide
> > help, information or solutions to problems, and on that score
i'm
> > impressed with mikroBasic all i can say is download the trial read
> > the forum see for yourself :)
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Bill Tinsley
> > > To: piclist@picl...
> > > Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 1:50 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [piclist] Re: PicBasic Pro v. MBasic...
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't see how the support would be any good if they
> > don't charge for upgrades for life.
> > >
> > > -------Original Message-------
> > >
> > > From: p_c_vincent
> > > Date: 04/28/05 17:52:14
> > > To: piclist@picl...
> > > Subject: [piclist] Re: PicBasic Pro v. MBasic...
> > >
> > > personaly i would say dont get either i tryed them both
> > and was
> > > dissapointed i now use mikroBasic by mikroElektronika its
> > awesome i
> > > payed about 86 GBP and thats it, free upgrades for life
> > and
> > > excellent customer service via a forum email etc they have
> > a free
> > > download that only limits the hex code to 2k so you can
> > try out all
> > > the examples there is a good maunal and a free online book
> > and
> > > project downloads you would be mad not to give it a look,
> > >
> > > within an hour i had a 16F877A and a 16F84A hooked up to a
> > lcd
> > > displaying the speed of a pwm driven motor, the code took
> > 10 mins
> > > the rest was soldering wires etc
> > >
> > > They do C, Pascal, basic
> > >
> > > http://www.mikroelektronika.co.yu/english/index.htm
> > >
> > > im not connected in anyway im just a total fan it realy is
> > that good
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In piclist@picl..., Malcolm
> > <malcolm.crabbe@n...> wrote:
> > > > Try downloading the demos or manuals and examples for
> > each product
> > > and
> > > > make a decision. I personally couldn't afford to buy
> > both to
> > > evaluate,
> > > > and I don't think many would change one for another.
> > > >
> > > > The thing is there are other BASIC compilers out there,
> > and there
> > > are
> > > > other languages that are equally as easy to use (and in
> > the case
> > > of JAL
> > > > are free as well)
> > > >
> > > > Personally I like the look of MBASIC, However there are
> > loads of
> > > IDE
> > > > interfaces for PicBASIC
> > > >
> > > > Malcolm
> > > >
> > > > clayforge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Has anyone used PicBasic Pro by MeLabs) and MBasic
Pro
> > (by Basic
> > > > > Micro)? How do the two compare? I can afford to get
> > one or the
> > > > > other, and obviously want the better of the two
> > products. By
> > > better,
> > > > > I mean easier to use, value for the money, more
> > powerful.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please do not bother listing all of the other
> > available Basic
> > > > > compilers. I have compared and contrasted and these
> > are the
> > > front
> > > > > runners in my search.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Scott
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and
> > follow the
> > > > > instructions
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> -------------------
> > ----------
> > > -------
> > > > > *>.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and
> > follow the instructions
> > > >.
> >
>
> to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the
> instructions
>
> to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the
> instructions
>
> *>.
Reply by Peter Vincent●May 3, 20052005-05-03
Nonsense, i do not use their development boards
i make my own with vero strip board and i do not use their programmers i have
used my pickit1 programmer and my DIY-K149B programmer they both work fine i
just compile it load the hex file into my programmer and its done, i have
had no problems, Seems to compile poorly ??? i think maybe the problem is with
your hardware design not with microbasic i tryed All the examples before i
purchased it they all worked fine thats one reason i got my wallet out
hope this thread dont turn into a basic war but
i am glad i seem to have stimulated a big intrest :)
----- Original Message -----
From: Malcolm
To: p...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [piclist] Re: PicBasic Pro v. MBasic...
I downloaded mikroboasic and tried some of the sample
files, which seemed to compile poorly (the hex would not work even though
the code compiled without errors) - Yes support is good, and the forums
are active but the problem is that their software is designed to function
with their own development boards and programmers.
I know its
going off topic a bit.. but there are other alternatives. JAL is
free and well supported, CH-BASIC has a nice interface and reputedly
produces tight code for a compiler. PicBASIC (pro) is well supported
and there are lots of IDE's available for it, and loads of example
programs.
I think at the end of the day you will never get the
"perfect" item as there will always one or several functions that one has
over the others. Your choice will also depend on the amount and
level of programming you are doing.
Personally I don't
write a lot of programs and as most of my stuff is pretty basic stuff I
use JAL.
The choice is yours my friend
Regards
Malcolm
rtstofer wrote:
> --- In
p...@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Vincent" <p3t3rv@b...> wrote: > >
product support is great they are in the process of releasing > version
2 a big update lots of new built in functions bug fixes all > of which
came from the forum they asked us what we wanted to see in > version 2
via the forum they put it in , your questions get answerd > by the
people that actualy write the code, just because they dont > rip us off
with constant charges for updates (pay or get left > behind) is no
measure of the quality of customer service just look > at MPLAB from
picmicro a very substantional piece of software > constantly updated do
they charge ? do they even charge for the > software to begin with ? no
and no so dose that meen Microchip gives > crap support ? my PicKit1
flash starter kit was only 20 the > upgrades are free > > I don't think the comparison is reasonable: > >
Microchip is in the business of selling chips. Tens of millions of > chips - they can easily afford to offer development software.
They > also need it for their own work. Why would anyone buy a
chip if > they couldn't use it? > > Xilinx and
Altera (among others) are finally offering free > development software
for their FPGA offerings. It gets their > products used by more
people for more applications. Maybe it adds a > dollar a chip to
the cost - not an important consideration. > > > >
> customer support is more than weather you pay for upgrades or > not
, its how the vendor interacts with the customer to provide >
help, information or solutions to problems, and on that score i'm > impressed with mikroBasic all i can say is download the trial read > the forum see for yourself :) > > > > >
> ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Bill
Tinsley > > To: p...@yahoogroups.com >
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 1:50 AM > >
Subject: Re: [piclist] Re: PicBasic Pro v. MBasic... > > >
> > > I don't
see how the support would be any good if they > don't charge for
upgrades for life. > > >
> -------Original
Message------- > > >
> From: p_c_vincent >
> Date: 04/28/05 17:52:14 > > To:
p...@yahoogroups.com >
> Subject: [piclist] Re:
PicBasic Pro v. MBasic... > > >
> personaly i would say dont
get either i tryed them both > and was >
> dissapointed i now use
mikroBasic by mikroElektronika its > awesome i >
> payed about 86 GBP and
thats it, free upgrades for life > and >
> excellent customer service
via a forum email etc they have > a free >
> download that only limits
the hex code to 2k so you can > try out all >
> the examples there is a
good maunal and a free online book > and >
> project downloads you would
be mad not to give it a look, > > >
> within an hour i had a
16F877A and a 16F84A hooked up to a > lcd >
> displaying the speed of a
pwm driven motor, the code took > 10 mins >
> the rest was soldering
wires etc > > >
> They do C, Pascal, basic > > > >
http://www.mikroelektronika.co.yu/english/index.htm > > >
> im not connected in anyway
im just a total fan it realy is > that good > > >
> > > > > > > >
> --- In
p...@yahoogroups.com, Malcolm > <malcolm.crabbe@n...> wrote: > > > Try downloading
the demos or manuals and examples for > each product >
> and >
> > make a decision.
I personally couldn't afford to buy > both to >
> evaluate, >
> > and I don't think
many would change one for another. >
> > >
> > The thing is there are
other BASIC compilers out there, > and there >
> are >
> > other languages that
are equally as easy to use (and in > the case >
> of JAL >
> > are free as well) > > > >
> > Personally I like the
look of MBASIC, However there are > loads of >
> IDE >
> > interfaces for
PicBASIC > > > > > > Malcolm > > > >
> > clayforge wrote: > > > >
> > > Has anyone used
PicBasic Pro by MeLabs) and MBasic Pro > (by Basic >
> > > Micro)? How
do the two compare? I can afford to get > one or the >
> > > other, and
obviously want the better of the two > products. By >
> better, >
> > > I mean easier to
use, value for the money, more > powerful. >
> > > >
> > > Please do not
bother listing all of the other > available Basic >
> > > compilers.
I have compared and contrasted and these > are the >
> front >
> > > runners in my
search. > > >
> > > > >
Thanks, > > >
> > > > >
Scott > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > to unsubscribe,
go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and > follow the >
> > > instructions > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
------------------- > ---------- >
> ------- >
> > > *>. >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> to unsubscribe, go to
http://www.yahoogroups.com and > follow the instructions >
> >.
--- In piclist@y
ahoogroups.com, "upand_at_them" <upand_at_them@y...> wrote: > > It should be pretty easy to make up a program
with a couple of
> > source files and give it a try.
>
> If I knew what I was doing, which I don't. It's not just using an
> include file, right?
>
> Mike
No, it's more like partitioning a project. The multiple file
example I have for PIC C Lite has 3 files: POWERUP.AS (the startup
file required for use with a bootloader), Alarm.c and Tasks.c (a
multitasking library). This was an overdesigned high water alarm
system for my boat. It was to be connected to an autodialer and
phone home when the bilge level got above a certain point. It's a
great alarm system but I fixed the leaks instead.
For this project in MPLAB, the PIC C Language Suite is selected and
the project file knows that these three source files, plus a couple
of .h files are to be compiled and linked together.
Each file is compiled separately and produces relocatable output
which would be limited to 2k if this project used cc5x. But there
are two files so each could grow to 2k.
A larger project might have several files and each would have the
compiler size limit but, in aggregate, the total project can fill
the PIC.
>
>
> --- In piclist@picl..., "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote:
> > --- In piclist@picl..., "upand_at_them"
> <upand_at_them@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > > The code limit isn't real! Just compile and link
separate
> > modules.
> > >
> > > I'm not familiar with this. Is there an example
somewhere?
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> > Not that I can find. It was discussed one time on another forum. > I
> > gave up on cc5x and went to PIC C Lite when I found I couldn't
have > > function pointers in arrays.
> >
> > It should be pretty easy to make up a program with a couple of
> > source files and give it a try.
> >
Reply by upand_at_them●April 29, 20052005-04-29
> It should be pretty easy to make up a program with a couple of > source files and give it a try.
If I knew what I was doing, which I don't. It's not just using an
include file, right?
Mike
--- In piclist@picl..., "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > --- In piclist@picl..., "upand_at_them"
<upand_at_them@y...> > wrote:
> > > The code limit isn't real! Just compile and link separate
> modules.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with this. Is there an example somewhere?
> >
> > Mike
>
> Not that I can find. It was discussed one time on another forum. I > gave up on cc5x and went to PIC C Lite when I
found I couldn't have
> function pointers in arrays.
>
> It should be pretty easy to make up a program with a couple of
> source files and give it a try.
>
Reply by rtstofer●April 29, 20052005-04-29
--- In piclist@picl..., "upand_at_them" <upand_at_them@y...>
wrote: > > The code limit isn't real! Just compile
and link separate modules. >
> I'm not familiar with this. Is there an example somewhere?
>
> Mike
Not that I can find. It was discussed one time on another forum. I
gave up on cc5x and went to PIC C Lite when I found I couldn't have
function pointers in arrays.
It should be pretty easy to make up a program with a couple of
source files and give it a try.
>
>
> --- In piclist@picl..., "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote:
> > --- In piclist@picl..., "upand_at_them"
> <upand_at_them@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > I use JAL too, because:
> > >
> > > 1) There are a bunch of nice, helpful people at the Yahoo JALlist > > > group.
> > > 2) I'm not new to programming; if there's something
that needs to > > be
> > > tweaked with a JAL library, I can pretty much do it. I'm
also
> not
> > > afraid to write my own libraries. Support for inline assembler > is
> > > very helpful when you're not a newbie programmer.
> > > 3) It does what I need to do. I've run into the code limit
of
> the
> > > free version of CC5X many times and I can't justify spending
$250 > > or
> > > $520 (!!) for the full version.
> >
> > The code limit isn't real! Just compile and link separate
> modules.
> > The problem I have with cc5x is that it doesn't implement the full > > language. I can not put function pointers in
arrays and this is a > > PITA when I want to write a state driven
program. It also doesn't > > handle complex expressions.
> >
> > One of the reasons I am moving from PICs to AVRs is the development > > tools. I am playing with the ATmega128 using
WinAVR. This setup > > includes a full GNU C compiler with a very
complete library of
> > hardware related code. JTAG programming and source level debugging > > is another nice feature.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In piclist@picl..., Malcolm <malcolm.crabbe@n...>
> > wrote:
> > > > I downloaded mikroboasic and tried some of the sample files,
> > which
> > > > seemed to compile poorly (the hex would not work even though
> the
> > > code
> > > > compiled without errors) - Yes support is good, and the forums > > are
> > > > active but the problem is that their software is designed to
> > > function
> > > > with their own development boards and programmers.
> > > >
> > > > I know its going off topic a bit.. but there are other
> > > alternatives.
> > > > JAL is free and well supported, CH-BASIC has a nice interface > > and
> > > > reputedly produces tight code for a compiler. PicBASIC (pro) > is
> > > well
> > > > supported and there are lots of IDE's available for it,
and
> > loads
> > > of
> > > > example programs.
> > > >
> > > > I think at the end of the day you will never get the "perfect" > > item
> > > as
> > > > there will always one or several functions that one has over
> the
> > > > others. Your choice will also depend on the amount and level > of
> > > > programming you are doing.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I don't write a lot of programs and as most
of my
> > stuff
> > > is
> > > > pretty basic stuff I use JAL.
> > > >
> > > > The choice is yours my friend
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Malcolm
Reply by upand_at_them●April 29, 20052005-04-29
> The code limit isn't real! Just compile and link separate
modules.
I'm not familiar with this. Is there an example somewhere?
Mike
--- In piclist@picl..., "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > --- In piclist@picl..., "upand_at_them"
<upand_at_them@y...> > wrote:
> > I use JAL too, because:
> >
> > 1) There are a bunch of nice, helpful people at the Yahoo JALlist
> > group.
> > 2) I'm not new to programming; if there's something that
needs to
> be
> > tweaked with a JAL library, I can pretty much do it. I'm also not > > afraid to write my own libraries. Support for
inline assembler is > > very helpful when you're not a newbie
programmer.
> > 3) It does what I need to do. I've run into the code limit of the > > free version of CC5X many times and I
can't justify spending $250
> or
> > $520 (!!) for the full version.
>
> The code limit isn't real! Just compile and link separate modules. > The problem I have with cc5x is that it
doesn't implement the full
> language. I can not put function pointers in arrays and this is a
> PITA when I want to write a state driven program. It also doesn't
> handle complex expressions.
>
> One of the reasons I am moving from PICs to AVRs is the development
> tools. I am playing with the ATmega128 using WinAVR. This setup
> includes a full GNU C compiler with a very complete library of
> hardware related code. JTAG programming and source level debugging
> is another nice feature.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > --- In piclist@picl..., Malcolm <malcolm.crabbe@n...>
> wrote:
> > > I downloaded mikroboasic and tried some of the sample files,
> which
> > > seemed to compile poorly (the hex would not work even though the > > code
> > > compiled without errors) - Yes support is good, and the forums
> are
> > > active but the problem is that their software is designed to
> > function
> > > with their own development boards and programmers.
> > >
> > > I know its going off topic a bit.. but there are other
> > alternatives.
> > > JAL is free and well supported, CH-BASIC has a nice interface
> and
> > > reputedly produces tight code for a compiler. PicBASIC (pro) is > > well
> > > supported and there are lots of IDE's available for it, and
> loads
> > of
> > > example programs.
> > >
> > > I think at the end of the day you will never get the
"perfect"
> item
> > as
> > > there will always one or several functions that one has over the > > > others. Your choice will also depend on
the amount and level of > > > programming you are doing.
> > >
> > > Personally I don't write a lot of programs and as most of my
> stuff
> > is
> > > pretty basic stuff I use JAL.
> > >
> > > The choice is yours my friend
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Malcolm
Reply by rtstofer●April 29, 20052005-04-29
--- In piclist@picl..., "upand_at_them" <upand_at_them@y...>
wrote: > I use JAL too, because:
>
> 1) There are a bunch of nice, helpful people at the Yahoo JALlist
> group.
> 2) I'm not new to programming; if there's something that needs to
be > tweaked with a JAL library, I can pretty much do
it. I'm also not
> afraid to write my own libraries. Support for inline assembler is
> very helpful when you're not a newbie programmer.
> 3) It does what I need to do. I've run into the code limit of the
> free version of CC5X many times and I can't justify spending $250 or > $520 (!!) for the full version.
The code limit isn't real! Just compile and link separate modules.
The problem I have with cc5x is that it doesn't implement the full
language. I can not put function pointers in arrays and this is a
PITA when I want to write a state driven program. It also doesn't
handle complex expressions.
One of the reasons I am moving from PICs to AVRs is the development
tools. I am playing with the ATmega128 using WinAVR. This setup
includes a full GNU C compiler with a very complete library of
hardware related code. JTAG programming and source level debugging
is another nice feature.
>
> Mike
> --- In piclist@picl..., Malcolm <malcolm.crabbe@n...> wrote: > > I downloaded mikroboasic and tried some of
the sample files, which > > seemed to compile poorly (the hex would not
work even though the
> code
> > compiled without errors) - Yes support is good, and the forums are > > active but the problem is that their software
is designed to
> function
> > with their own development boards and programmers.
> >
> > I know its going off topic a bit.. but there are other
> alternatives.
> > JAL is free and well supported, CH-BASIC has a nice interface and > > reputedly produces tight code for a compiler.
PicBASIC (pro) is
> well
> > supported and there are lots of IDE's available for it, and loads > of
> > example programs.
> >
> > I think at the end of the day you will never get the
"perfect" item > as
> > there will always one or several functions that one has over the
> > others. Your choice will also depend on the amount and level of
> > programming you are doing.
> >
> > Personally I don't write a lot of programs and as most of my stuff > is
> > pretty basic stuff I use JAL.
> >
> > The choice is yours my friend
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Malcolm
Reply by upand_at_them●April 29, 20052005-04-29
I use JAL too, because:
1) There are a bunch of nice, helpful people at the Yahoo JALlist
group.
2) I'm not new to programming; if there's something that needs to be
tweaked with a JAL library, I can pretty much do it. I'm also not
afraid to write my own libraries. Support for inline assembler is
very helpful when you're not a newbie programmer.
3) It does what I need to do. I've run into the code limit of the
free version of CC5X many times and I can't justify spending $250 or
$520 (!!) for the full version.
Mike
--- In piclist@picl..., Malcolm <malcolm.crabbe@n...> wrote: > I downloaded mikroboasic and tried some of the
sample files, which
> seemed to compile poorly (the hex would not work even though the code > compiled without errors) - Yes support is good,
and the forums are
> active but the problem is that their software is designed to function > with their own development boards and
programmers.
>
> I know its going off topic a bit.. but there are other alternatives. > JAL is free and well supported, CH-BASIC has a
nice interface and
> reputedly produces tight code for a compiler. PicBASIC (pro) is well > supported and there are lots of IDE's
available for it, and loads of > example programs.
>
> I think at the end of the day you will never get the "perfect"
item as > there will always one or several functions that
one has over the
> others. Your choice will also depend on the amount and level of
> programming you are doing.
>
> Personally I don't write a lot of programs and as most of my stuff is > pretty basic stuff I use JAL.
>
> The choice is yours my friend
>
> Regards
>
> Malcolm